Stricken by God?
Nonviolent Identification & the Victory of Christ
Edited by Brad Jersak and Michael Hardin
published by Freshwind
It's about the 'non-violent atonement.' Supposedly, the church is asking questions about the very foundation of their belief - the theology of the cross. And the answers are coming from 'every stream of Christianity.'
This new book, a compilation of essays edited by Brad Jersak, is endorsed by emerging church leader Brian McLaren who says this:"Across virtually every stream of Christian faith, the doctrinal ground is shifting under our theology of the Cross and the atonement. Tectonic plates of understanding are sliding and grinding — long-standing assumptions concerning sin, wrath, judgement, salvation and the very nature of God are triggering theological tremors in every quarter."
Read more about this from the Clarion Journal here:
http://clarionjournal.typepad.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2007/07/stricken-by-god.html
"Stricken by God? is a highly important contribution at a critical time, bringing together a range of thoughtful voices who raise important questions and pose needed and well-defended answers. This is a work I will refer back to often and recommend widely." - Brian D. McLaren, Author/ActivistSome of the contributors to the book include N.T. Wright, James Alison, Rowan Williams, Richard Rohr, Marcus Borg and includes essays by Michael Hardin, J. Denny Weaver, Tony Bartlett and Sharon Baker.
But who are all these people and why should it matter? Let's take a closer look at a few of them:
*NT Wright
-a bishop in the Church of England and a well known author and scholar in the New Testament, who has recently been confusing Christians about what the apostle Paul 'really' said
For an excellent Book Review of What Saint Paul Really Said by N.T. Wright, see here:
From The Armoury:
Part 1
http://thearmoury.blogspot.com/2007/07/indeed-has-god-said-part-i.html
Part 2
http://thearmoury.blogspot.com/2007/07/indeed-has-god-really-said-part-ii.html
Part 3
http://thearmoury.blogspot.com/2007/07/indeed-has-god-really-said-part-iii.html
Part 4
http://thearmoury.blogspot.com/2007/07/indeed-has-god-really-said-part-iv.html
Pastor Beasely of The Armoury concludes his thorough book review of NT Wright by saying:
“I must submit to the reader that Wright's treatment of Holy Writ is shocking. In many respects the Bible has become a mere tool for Wright to advance his agenda of ecumenism”
Here is a good review of Simply Christians by NT Wright from 9Marks that concludes:
"if the theological and apologetic vision of this book becomes the normative pattern for the church, the results will be grievous for the advance of Christ’s kingdom to the ends of the earth."
Wright is also popular in emerging church circles, and you will see his books and quotes on emergent websites. In fact, Brian McLaren and NT Wright especially are often recommended as must reads for the emerging church (see here).
*James Alison
- Catholic theologian, priest, and author, noted for his work on gay issues and the application of René Girard's anthropological theory in theology -wikipedia
(incidentally, Rene Girard is one of the endorsers of Stricken by God?)
You can read Alison's article called An Atonement Update here:
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_8/alison.htm
It’s rather long, but if you want to find out what he teaches on the atonement, it’s there.
*Richard Rohr
-Catholic friar, author, and popular retreat “master” who draws his spirituality from different religions (Buddhism, Zen, Sufism) who has worked with the Enneagram for over 30 years:
"With the help of Andreas Ebert, Rohr has taken this magical tool from ancient Christian and Sufi traditions and applied them to modern mytho-poetic and psychological uses."
-http://www.menstuff.org/columns/overboard/rohr.html
Rohr is the founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation, where kything prayer was popularized. This is basically a method of calling up another person’s spirit to enter you. You can read about Rohr and kything prayer here:
http://www.apostasyalert.org/REFLECTIONS/mystic.htm
Richard Rohr's ideas often sound like they come from Zen Buddhism, using terms like "enlightenment" "two paths of transformation" and "inner journeys.” He often seems to be mixing eastern philosophies with Catholicism.
*Marcus Borg
– interspiritualist who openly rejects the view that we are justified by the blood of Christ
In his book, The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Authentic Contemporary Faith, he says:
"I learned from my professors and the readings they assigned that Jesus almost certainly was not born of a virgin, did not think of himself as the Son of God, and did not see his purpose as dying for the sins of the world." -The God We Never Knew, Marcus Borg, p. 25This statement by Borg is an accurate representation of his view of Christian theology.
Here is another quote from Marcus Borg of the Living Spiritual Teachers Project:
"The Christian life is not about pleasing God the finger-shaker and judge. It is not about believing now or being good now for the sake of heaven later." -lighthousetrails.com
*This brings us to Brian McLaren, emerging church leader and author, named one of the top 25 most influential Evangelicals in America today by TIME magazine.
In a recent interview, as well as on McLaren's website, he revealed his glowing admiration for interspiritualist Marcus Borg, saying he has "high regard" for him:
"While I have high regard for the “search for the historical Jesus” (especially the work of scholars like N. T. Wright and Marcus Borg, who dialogue about their differences in a responsible and charitable way), much Jesus scholarship (so-called) seems to trim Jesus down to the size of the assumptions of those doing the research."This may explain why McLaren actually teamed up with Borg last year (read about that here).
- http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000201.html
If you don’t know who Brian McLaren is you can find out more here:
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/brianmclaren.htm
These contributors alone are a good indicator of where this book on the atonement is going. It's very fitting that there is a question mark at the end of the title, because this book may leave those who read it with a giant question mark of doubt about the foundation of their faith...the atonement of the cross.
Read what Brad Jersak says about this book on his blog (the-god-who-speaks.blogspot.com):
"For those interested in the meaning of the Cross, I'll recommend our newly arrived book, "Stricken by God?" (edited by me ... 524 pages, 20 authors). You can order it from www.bradjersak.com. It's something that I think your pastors, elders and teachers might especially appreciate..."If you want to look into the book more, click on these:
-the chapter titles:
http://www.bradjersak.com/strickenfeature2.html
-the reviews:
http://www.bradjersak.com/strickenfeature3.html
Yes, there seem to be a lot of positive reviews, but who knows all those names or what those people believe? Just because they have titles and universities behind their names does not mean much, as so many seminaries and universities are going interspiritual these days. For example, one endorser of the book is philosopher Rene Girard, founder of something called the Mimetic Theory, whom I suppose is a very important person to have read your book as his name pops up everywhere when you research this nonviolent atonement thing. Next thing you know, the Mennonites will be catching on to this.
Here's an interesting note; two of the endorsers of Stricken by God? are MENNONITES - Willard Swartley, Professor Emeritus of Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary and Ted Grimsrud of Eastern Mennonite University, the latter of which recommends Stricken by God?, saying, “It is difficult to overstate the importance of this collection." This is no surprise as EMU and AMBS are infiltrated with New Age and contemplative influences. The point being that endorsements by a lot of names does not always mean that a book is biblical.
In conclusion, I find it interesting that this book is published by Jersak's Freshwind Press.
The Bible warns about being tossed to and fro by winds of doctrine...yet this is exactly what is happening today! Jersak talks about listening to God's voice, but could it be that he has been participating in mystical methods like 'spiritual doorways' and 'visualization' for so long that he has now fallen for the deception of deceiving spirits? Is the evidence finally obvious for all to see in this new interspiritual book? The danger here is that, because of the name association game, this book will be catapulted into the emerging popularity zone, bringing further confusion into an already confused post-modern church that has left the simplicity of the gospel.
I am giving this book a giant
RED FLAG!!!!!!
"And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ"
Ephesians 4:11-15
~~~
For further reading (regarding Mr. Jersak)...
Can You Hear Me?
Danger: Avalanche
Imagine
Nice Books and Things
Teachers of Strange Things
~~~
Note: Read the More Books & Things review of this book (thus far) here:
Stricken by God?Chapter 14 - 20 (not finished)
Part 1 Foreword and Preface
Part 2, Chapter One
Part 3, Chapter Two
Part 4, Chapter Three
Part 5, Chapter Four
Part 6, Chapter Five
Part 7, Chapter Six
Part 8, Chapter Seven
Part 9, Chapter Eight
Part 10, Chapter Nine
Part 11, Chapter Ten
Part 12, Chapter Eleven
Part 13, Chapter Twelve
Part 14, Chapter Thirteen
~to be updated as time permits~
**** NEW October 2008:
Recommended reading:
The Atonement Wars
by Orrel Steincamp
Brad Jersak's Argument for Listening Prayer...
thearmchairtheologian.blogspot.com
***UPDATE: MARCH 2009:
William P. Young, author of The Shack, recommends Brad Jersak's book Stricken by God?
See here:
Interview with William Young - ALERT
morebooksandthings.blogspot.com
25 comments:
I don't mind the critical thinking involved in faith, it's totally necessary...but these people leave me DAZED AND CONFUSED. I think you hit the nail on the head with this:
this book will be catapulted into the emerging popularity zone (I would go further and say that (Jersak anyways) is being given influence even in churches which are striving and claiming to preach 'the whole counsel of God' and remain biblically solid), bringing further confusion into an already confused post-modern church that has left the simplicity of the gospel.
seriously. is it really so complicated to understand Christ's atonement for us? And no mention of how it is related to the sacrificial system that God himself gave the Jews as a picture of what Christ would do? It's like these people see the God of O.T. and N.T. as two different entities. I read the excerpt of Jersak's chapter and it made me mad too, because he just overcomplicates things so much until I have no clue what he is trying to say and I'm beginning to cloud the 'simplicity of the gospel' myself...argh!
The authors too, seem very ecumenical, different streams as he says....and I realize that Mr. Jersak himself is not supporting everything they say by editing, because it's presented as a bit of a debate, in other words, the authors have differences in their own beliefs. But he is supporting the 4 or 5 points he pulled out that were in common. And he is in effect saying that none of the various differences in belief matter, they are just different streams...which is quite, um, ecumenical I guess.
Yep, I think a red flag is warranted.
Okay, I was already to go to sleep when I read this post. I knew one day soon I would start to see Brad's teachings and sympathies cross paths with Brian McClaren. Oh how this breaks my heart to realize so many people are going to be sucked in to this UnGodly book that is not based on God's truth. That " Different Streams" mention that anonomous talks about reminds me of the United Methodist commercial I saw the other day. It talks about people all following different paths, but sharing the journey. All of these teachings are exactly what the New Age Movement has been indoctrinating us for years. They say it doesn't matter how we try to reach God, but that is a lie. Only through the blood of Christ Jesus can we be saved. I am so tired of hearing the argument that if somebody is teaching part truth, and part lies we should still believe them because of the little bit of truth. We need to be more in the inspired Word of God, than reading the words of men. Okay, enough said!!
"Discernment is not a matter of simply telling the difference between right and wrong; rather, it is telling the difference between right and almost right."
-Charles Spurgeon
Thank you for being discerning!
I agree with the quote Ed shared in his comment about what discernment is. It's good to see someone who's being discerning in the middle of so much "almost right" running ramped in the Church.
Keep up the good work!
~Kelsey
Yes, Anonny, it's way too confusing.
Dawn, I'm tired of part truth too.
Hi Mr. 'Ed'. :) Love the quote.
Thanks for your comment Kelsey.
Thanks to all of you for your encouraging words.
Friends:
The path to salvation is narrow but it is not narrow minded. I sense that each of you thinks he/she has some corner on Truth that no one else might have unless they subscribe to your particular 'narrow' beliefs. I, for one, find your vision of the Lord Jesus to be disturbing, one wonders if you have discerned anything or if you have just discerned your own little hermeneuticval circle.
If our 'narrow beliefs' include believing that Jesus Christ was the substitionary atonement and propitiation for our sins, past, present and future, once and for all, and that He was and is the fulfillment of the Law as prophecied throughout the Old Testament, and that the only way to the Father is through Jesus by faith in the blood atonement, and that He is the way, the truth and the life, and that no man comes to the Father but through Him, then, yes, I believe we can have the Truth, because the Bible tells us so.
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Eph. 2:13
This book is already released in the United States and the rest of the world through Eerdmans Publishing Co. Since you are so keen on finding people 'guilty by association,' perhaps we should all abandon your beloved Spurgeon since his 'The Soul Winner' is also published by Eerdmans, a publisher who also releases many of your favourites.
I advise you to read the book first (seriously, that you obviously haven't is quite unsettling) and acknowledge that many of the authors are reviving an original Orthodox atonement understanding from Christianity's inception and that the only reason many of these athors are re-thinking the atonement is that the current penal understanding is an innovative aberration. The only reason why this book seems to "complicate" things so much, is that it becomes incumbent upon the authors to dismantle many of the precariously assembled presuppositions that you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge in yourself.
Find something else to do with your time other than spreading hate towards those who are attempting to revive an ancient Christianity that is concealed by your innovation. Be advised, your lack of familiarity with historical Christianity and history in general, is acutely obvious. Your "going back to the Bible" is little more than a 21st century, North American, extremely individualistic and therefore noticeably fragmented (i.e. different than everyone else's interpretation) exposition, while historical Christianity represents a unity (the Church is one since God is one; novel, isn't it?) of interpretation based on the exposition of the fathers. Of course, if you do not trust the exposition of the fathers against your own interpetation (ah, Western individualism...very good for each person *individually,* while not so good for the Church as a [divided] whole), where was your God during the interval between the apostles and Calvin? My God was alive and well and moving through his bride, the Church, and did not die or hide after the apostle John reposed. You should read what the Holy Spirit did in his Church after the apostles.
Next time, try not to label everything with which you are unfamiliar and that you are afraid of as "New Age." Remember, history is humanity's memory without which we are afflicted with a widespread amnesia that literally cannot recognize an illegitimate presupposition. Scripture is nothing if it is not read, and it is the fragmentary reading and interpretation of Scripture that these undetected presuppositions yield (i.e. "going back to Scripture alone" is a failed experiment since it guarantees that one's presuppositions are not first dismantled, the evidence of which is unity in interpretation...something that does not exist among youselves).
"The Church Fathers are a wonderful source of rich and rewarding material. But they cannot be read uncritically. It is obvious from the New Testament that doctrinal confusion, legalism, sacerdotalism, and gnostic error were beginning to find their way into the church even before the canon was closed. The writings of the Church Fathers are not free from such influences. Moreover, the next three centuries were a long chronicle of doctrinal conflict, and these men whom we call Church Fathers did not always agree with one another.
It is therefore a mistake to view the Church Fathers' writings as if they had some sort of canonical authority. These men were not apostles."
@Hall of Church History
By the way, I still have a few more chapters to go, but when I have completed reading 'Stricken by God' I will do a more thorough chapter by chapter review. Watch for it next week here at More Books and Things.
Who was it that canonized Scripture, including the NT list of 27 books, a list that did not appear as it is today until an AD 367 paschal letter by St. Athanasius?
Which came first, the Church or Scripture? To whom was Paul writing those letters? Answer: the Church that existed and assembled for prayer and worship before Paul's epistles were wrtten, indeed the recipients of these epistles, of Scripture, existed first. How did they assemble, how did they pray, how did they worship without your SOLE guide?
What did the apostles rely on immediately upon Christ's ascension in AD 30....sixty years before the last of the NT was even written, nevermind canonized? What did they do!? What did they believe and how did they believe it...again, without your SOLE guide.
With what belief and practice/ethic did the canonization of Scripture have to align before it was included in the canon? Who canonized Scripture. Does it not seem historically responsible to assert that for something to be canonized it must agree with the teachings of the Church that existed FIRST, the bride of Christ that the HOLY SPIRIT DID NOT ABANDON, the Church that received and preserved the Apostolic teachings received from Christ himself. Does the Holy Spirit choose to move in and through the Fathers for some things (i.e. the canonization of Scripture), while abandoning them for other decisions that do not conveniently fit in with your own presuppositions? This the Church, the bride of Christ! I refuse to buy into your precaiours notion that Christ had an annulment immediately after St. John the Evangelist reposed.
My God stayed alive and made himself know EVEN AFTER the Apostles. Where was your God? The Church existed before Scripture did, unless Christ dropped the NT on earth while he ascended to Heaven and before it was even written. I rely on the oldest and most original source of Christ's teachings, his Church, while simultaneously relying on Scripture to the same extent as the written expression of the same Holy Tradition, since it agrees with those who also agreed with it enough to canonize it, the Fathers.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Dear Anonymous,
I will try to answer your questions. As there are quite a few of them, forgive me if this a rather long entry...
1)“Who was it that canonized Scripture, including the NT list of 27 books, a list that did not appear as it is today until an AD 367 paschal letter by St. Athanasius?”
My Reply:
The scriptures were canonized, not the interpretations of the men who canonized the writings of the true church fathers: the apostles. God certainly protected His Word inspite of the corruption of the dark ages!
“God's providence gave us the 27 book New Testament Canon, not the church. God, not men decided the canon. This providence does not mean that church leaders were inspired in their selecting the canon, only that God had his eye on the scriptures the whole time and brought about His will to form the Bible we see today!” (http://www.bible.ca/canon.htm)
2)“Which came first, the Church or Scripture?”
My Reply:
Which came first, the church or Israel? The church or the Torah? The church or the Law and the prophets? Who protected scripture all those years? The Hebrew people!
3)“How did they assemble, how did they pray, how did they worship without your SOLE guide?”
My Reply:
Acts 2:42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Acts 5:42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
Acts 5:3,4 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.
4)“What did the apostles rely on immediately upon Christ's ascension in AD 30....sixty years before the last of the NT was even written, nevermind canonized? What did they do!? What did they believe and how did they believe it...again, without your SOLE guide.”
My Reply:
The apostles appointed elders and teachers that devoted themselves to prayer and the Word, what they had then (the Hebrew scriptures) and even referred to Paul’s writings as ‘scripture’. Paul taught and reasoned daily from the scripture (the Hebrew scriptures).
Acts 4: 13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.
Paul taught and reasoned with them from the Hebrew scriptures. He taught in the synagogues and anywhere else he could.
Acts 17:2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures
5)“Does the Holy Spirit choose to move in and through the Fathers for some things (i.e. the canonization of Scripture), while abandoning them for other decisions that do not conveniently fit in with your own presuppositions?”
My Reply:
The ‘church fathers’ were imperfect men who did their fair share of twisting the scriptures to spread anti-Semitism, as well as adding traditions that were not taught by Jesus or the apostles (who were all Jewish by the way).
6)“This the Church, the bride of Christ! I refuse to buy into your precaiours notion that Christ had an annulment immediately after St. John the Evangelist reposed.”
My Reply:
The church, the bride of Christ, consisted of Jews who believed, and Gentiles who believed and were grafted in to the promise, the Old covenant. (Ephesians, Galatians). The church was born on the Jewish Feast of Pentecost, a fulfillment of the Hebrew scriptures (Lev. 23:15-22, Acts 2:1)
It has since consisted of believers, Jew and Gentile, until this day. I have never said, nor do I believe, that the Holy Spirit abandoned the church. The true church/Bride of Christ is not a system, organization, group, or denomination…it is every individual throughout the last 2000 years who has repented and believed through faith that Jesus Christ is the Messiah as prophecied in the Old Testament by the Jewish prophets, who died as our substitute for the penalty of sin once and for all, was buried, rose again on the third day, and is seated at the right hand of God as our (one and only) mediator, above all earthly religious systems and traditions of man.
7)“My God stayed alive and made himself know EVEN AFTER the Apostles.”
My Reply:
Stayed alive? God (Elohim) always has been. He was and is and is to come (Revelation 4:8), he created the world and planned for the Son to be the sacrifice lamb even before the foundations of the world to make a way for all to be saved.
1 Peter 1:18-20 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
8)“Where was your God? The Church existed before Scripture did, unless Christ dropped the NT on earth while he ascended to Heaven and before it was even written.”
My Reply:
The Hebrew canon existed before the church did, Israel existed before the church did, the biblical feasts and Holy Days were (are) not only memorials but also prophetic pictures of the Messiah that was to come through Israel.
9)“I rely on the oldest and most original source of Christ's teachings, his Church, while simultaneously relying on Scripture to the same extent as the written expression of the same Holy Tradition, since it agrees with those who also agreed with it enough to canonize it, the Fathers.”
My Reply:
I rely on the oldest source of Christ’s teachings. Jesus never quoted as Scripture from any book outside the Hebrew canon. Since he even used the correct Jewish order and book divisions, we can conclude that the Scripture Jesus bore witness to was the Hebrew Tanakh: the Torah (5 books of Moses), the prophets, and the writings.
Jesus is the Word. (John 1:1-5)
Praise God that there have been brave individuals since the first centuries after Christ, who have stood for God’s Word amidst departure from Biblical Christianity!
Thank you for your questions and comments. I try to answer everyone's questions as best I can. Hope this was satisfactory.
Thank you for your response and effort; I really do appreciate it.
Unfortunately, you did not answer my questions with reference to the relationship between the New Testament and the Church (Do you rely only on the Old Testament for the teachings of Christ for the Church? Who or what was the FIRST to carry on Christ's interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures; was it the Church or the NT writings?).
Also, you must be careful translating the same word in the Greek as 'teachings' if from Christ or the Apostles and 'tradition' if from humans, when it is the same word in the Greek, nevermind the times when Paul illuminates the importance of tradition which are indeed interptreted correctly 1Cor.11:2, 15:2; 2Thes.2:15, 3:16; 2Tim2:2, 3:14; 2Pet.2:20-21, 3:16.
To be blunt, it is very evident that you do not know your history. Consequently, you are utterly unaware of the very VERY late origin of many of your beliefs and interpretations of Scripture and so are your readers (yes, what you say ARE *interpretations* of Scripture and not Scripture itself, also by a fallible human [you] who is further hindered by your distance from the apostolic era and unfamiliarity with history). Why did no one immediately after the Apostles believe what you believe? To ignore the writings of John the Apostle's students, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp, and their students, such as St. Irenaeus of Lyons and St. Justin Martyr, you are ignoring the thought and teachings of those the Apostles themselves approved, even taught! Why would I rely on your teachings and interpretations and not theirs?
I humbly suggest you cease from your self-appointed vocation of protector of the faith, swallow your pride, and accept that you are not any better or more accurate than the Fathers, some of whom were taught by the Apostles themselves. At the very least, we can both agree that *you* did not exist before the Church; the Church is overwhelmingly complex, old and experienced, with experiences you too casually dismiss as trivial. I suggest you not teach the Church how to be the Church, but allow the Church teach you what is the Church; it already existed since Christ (i.e. before you were born).
Unfortunately, you have an advantage in that concepts are largely invisible and less explicit, while practices are more visible and overt; as such, it is more difficult to identify your own beliefs (concepts) as innovations and traditions of men (which they are) than it is to identify practices as the same. Traditional practices emerged to preserve the apostolic teachings in a situation far more complex and different than in Christianity's inception without which your own aberrations would begin to appear (which of course they have). Look at Judaism; is its present form (and the form in which Christ and the apostles took part) an innovative aberration because its practices and traditions are far more elaborate than that which was adhered to by Abraham (i.e. Abraham didn't celebrate Passover, offer sacrifices in a temple [or a tabernacle for that matter], or practice any of the overwhelmingly countless other rich traditions in Judaism, but either did not do them at all or performed very rudimentary versions of the same)? Circumstances changed (number of adherents, political context, emergence of false teachings to counter, etc.), and so various practices were introduced to commemorate its past, its struggles, and to preserve its teachings for subsequent generations.
I'm sure we can both believe that Scripture is ineffectual if not read (in the very least). My question to you is, Why should I trust YOUR (a human) interpretation of Scripture or MY (a human) interpretation of Scripture (interpretations that are rarely the same and have produced the 3500 and counting denominations in North America) over against the interpretation of those who were physical students of the Apostles, those who passed on the teachings of the Apostles (teachings with which aprox. 4/5 of Christianity is unified in agreement)?
Who appointed YOU the ombudsman of Christianity and not St. Ignatius of Antioch or St. Polycarp or St. Irenaeus or St. Justin Martyr, et al. (i.e. the Church as a unified whole -- it does still exist this way)?
Be humbled, I pray.
God bless.
Dear Anonymous,
First of all, yes, the present form of Judaism is way different than it’s original form, it too had been added to by men. It had changed already by Jesus’ time, and has since changed even more.
Secondly, Abraham was a Gentile, even though he was the father of God's chosen people who later came to be know as Jews. Of course he did not celebrate Passover or operate in a temple as he died long before his descendants ended up in Egypt which led to the Exodus. The Passover, and the feasts of Leviticus 23, and the sacrificial system were all ordained and instructed by God directly to Moses (the tabernacle in the wilderness being the precursor to and the plan for the temple). The ‘changed circumstances” you mention were judgements of God due to idolatry and disobedience, (i.e. Babylonian captivity).
Thirdly, I’m not demanding, or even asking that you trust my interpretation. I am not alone in my belief of letting scripture interpret scripture while keeping within the text, with the Holy Spirit as our guide. We must focus on God’s Word, not anything outside of it. Sola Scriptura is the way we come to understand God’s Word.
Fourthly, I can hardly be classifed as a self appointed ombudsman when all I do is blog what I do know (which isn’t much) on my little brown blog, which (amazingly) just happens to be read by a handful of people here and there. I certainly don’t claim to be a teacher of the church, but just another undeserving joint heir with Christ (Ephesians 1), with the Holy Spirit as my teacher.
“for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." Luke 12:12
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” John 14:26
He gives gifts to whom He chooses, some are teachers, some have the gift of faith, some have the gift of discernment. (1 Cor. 12) Has He not promised to teach us all things? Isn’t the message of the gospel simple enough that all may understand and be saved, whether they are history buffs or not? Like the jailer who said “What must I do to be saved”, and the Ethiopian, and the thief on the cross, (who were not saved or chosen because of their history knowledge or works)? Which church fathers did they need to interpret the gospel for them?
It is not complicated.
And lastly, it’s true, you are correct...I am just a simpleton saved by the grace of God and grafted into the Promise. Praise His name! Good thing He is no respecter of persons, as I am deserving of nothing, and still have much to learn. But please tell me Anonymous, do you have a name? And would I perhaps find that name on a certain book cover?
I'm glad you agree with me.
Abraham could not participate in those traditions that he predated, and the Apostles could not have participated in those traditions that they predated; but neither traditions are illegitimate because of this. Christ participated in that elaborate form of Judaism with elements "added by men," and I will participate in that elborate Christianity with elements added by men guided by the Holy Spirit as the emerging subsequent circumstances called for them.
I'm sorry to say that from an external perspective, your interaction with other thinkers sounds like it comes from someone a lot more confident in her condemnation of others' opinions than one who still has "much to learn." This latter approach is certainly an attitude that we should all have, and I commend you for your willingness to adopt such an approach; I wish your blog conformed to such an attitude, however. I am not requesting that you change what you believe, or that you align your beliefs with those that you simply cannot agree with, but that instead you refrain from making outlandish, intemperate, baseless and hurtful accusations against people and their understanding of Christ's teachings when you have not met these people nor have the ability to interact with what they are trying to communicate. If you feel that your capabilities restrict you to asking more questions than providing answers, perhaps this is how you should approach that with which you are unfamiliar.
And no, I'm sorry to say that I am not the editor of Stricken by God, if that's what you were implying. I am just someone who believes strongly that temperance should be everyone's goal on indeed most issues; one can only know so much! I apologize if I have exceeded my own prescirbed boundaries in this regard, and thank you for your cordial responses despite this.
Just a quick reply...
Christ participated in the feasts of Israel that were ordained by His Father, but he did NOT participate in the corruption of the religious system but rather spoke out AGAINST and condemned it. That is why the religious leaders hated Him.
I am not confident in my own judgement or 'condemnation' of others’ "opinions", but confident in God’s Word, by which all things can be accurately measured and exposed, including doctrinal error and false teaching.
As I blog, I do try to present the facts from the sources themselves, and measure them against God’s plumbline. In today's information age, the evidence is accessible to all and open to evaluation. Like the Bereans, we are to test all things and see if they line up with God's Word.
Thank you, Anonymous, for your opinion and advice, even though words always have more clout when they are not spoken from behind the cover of anonymity. And you didn’t really answer my question, which was not whether you were the editor, but if your name was (one of the twenty) on the front cover of the book.
~~~
***Note to all:
By the way, many blog administrators do not allow anonymous comments. I always have, as I believe it teaches me patience. I also realize that computer illiteracy could be part of the reason, but I do believe that commenters who leave their names give credibility to what they say.
If anyone else wishes to comment on this post, please stick to the topic (i.e. the book, the atonement, etc.). As this thread is getting rather long, it will be closed next week to comments.
Thankyou.
Carla
I am hiding behind my anonymity as much as you are hiding behind a blog that, if read, nevertheless almost guarantees that you will not run into nor have to explain yourself to those you criticize. Merely stating one's first name on a blog that ensures such a safe distance from those to whom you direct your disparaging remarks is not anymore courageous than refusing to state one's first name. Blogs, and yours included I believe, if used as such a negative venue, are indeed a convenient and impregnable agency for expressing one's criticism. I hope your readers understand this. Indeed, I could give a first name too, but in the Blog world, such is only of value for correctly or more precisely addressing the person who made the comment, something I could care less about.
Thank you Rhonda. That's much better. :)
That's a good point. I think the handful of people who read here already know me, and know that I am sticking me own neck out as opposed to hiding. It's only because of the odd blog post here and there that get noticed by the larger blogs that others even visit my little brown blog. Most of the things I post here are to give a voice to the concerns of those who e-mail me who don't have their own blogs, and they already know me personally. The rest is to encourage many of those who have e-mailed me with sorrowful tales of deception in their own churches.If anyone else stops by and wants to know more about me, they are most welcome to e-mail me and get acquainted. Many have. I have made some wonderful friends this way. My contact e-mail is there for all to see. I am not hiding, but I am a private person, and due to some unnamed situations I have had in the past, I choose not to include my last name on the front of my blog, or location, just like the majority of bloggers do. It's by choice, not by cowardess.
That's enough about me.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving Rhonda! :)
Carla, I believe that you are far too patient with those like annonymous Rhonda who consider themselves humble enough to trample under foot the sacrifice of our Saviour.
And allowing her to get away with attacking the doctrine of the perspecuity of the Scriptures.
The Scriptures can be understood, simply enough to know gross error when it is presented, and these kinds of demon inspired objections are to be expected but not tolerated.
There are sheep to protect from such wolves as these and no platform should be given them (including blog comment sections)where they can spread their confusion and lies.
I realize that some will find my comments too harsh, but I think that it is time that we woke up and realized that the wolves are moving in on the flock, this is not a time to pussy foot around, yelling "shoo, shoo" to the wolves, but rather to call them what they are and put the rod into action and beat them off. (metaphoricly speaking).
Thank you Rose. I believe you are right. I have had patience up to a point, hoping that with gentleness and respect I can correct a brother or sister. In recent weeks, the direction I have seen Brad Jersak take has brought my patience to an end. If anyone else comes to his defense, I may not respond so gently.
Oops, I forgot that I was going to close this thread.
Carla,
Well done. I ejoyed your solid answer to anonymus. Anonymus seems to resort to some sort of papacy bound with chains of murderous inquistion, using empty, vain, swelling words, clouds carried about without water, full of hate and vitriol.
Your answers were guided by the Spirit of God and full of His word to which anonymus seemed to have no answer. You have given great testimony in your gentle reply. God Bless you.
Thanks for adding to the buzz, but I do question the practice of "reviewing" books without reading them first.
Sincerely,
Brad Jersak
Good morning Mr. Jersak,
So there is a buzz? I hadn't heard that.
Actually, this post was not a book 'review', but a book 'alert', however, I have since purchased and read this book. I agree with you...one cannot review a book one has not read. Thanks for sharing your concern.
In Christ,
Carla
The *simple* Word of God...60,000 denominations can't be wrong. This is an ancient manuscript steeped in a culture and time from which you are so far removed, and written in a language that no doubt you cannot read (and regardless of whether or not you can, most can't nonetheless). Of course, you may say that you do not need to; that is a comment coming from someone who has not had her or his understanding altered by a recognition of the difference between the original language and English. I ask that you treat this Holy book with the veneration it deserves.
There is a way to navigate its riches, however; humbly allow the Church to teach you what the Church is and has been for 2000 years rather than designate yourself as the one who must teach the Church how to be the Church. Have you been exposed to so much that you refuse to believe any piece of information exists out there with the ability to alter your understanding?
Remember, history is the scripture of the Holy Spirit.
If I may be so bold, it seems that you are so insecure with your own beliefs that you feel that even dialogue with those who hold various views actually threatens or alters your own views; this is simply not the case. By all means, continue to hold to your own views while *dialoguing*. But to refuse to dialogue and instead resort to attacking all alternative understandings only exposes the reality that you are afraid that you might actually change your mind, that what you already think is not able to withstand a true dialogue. As such, you defend, defend, defend, defend, while not trusting in God's protection, if needed, nor His virtue and love to let you know where you might be wrong.
"Someone who has actually tasted truth is not contentious for truth. Someone who is considered by people to be zealous for truth has not yet learnt what truth is really like; once he has truly learnt it, he will cease from zealousness on its behalf."
– St. Isaac the Syrian
Rest in the truth; it appears that what you deem truth has in reality made you restless.
P.S. I'm not Roman Catholic...nor do I acknowledge the authority of the Pope; which "spirit" told you that I do, Michael Ochoa?
As I am now taking a break til 2008, this thread is officially closed.
Any further comments and possible dialogue can be sent to my e-mail. My contact information is on the sidebar.
Thank you.
Basically because Calvinism goes overboard in going so far as to present the Father as roasting Jesus in hell, some people who find this false doctrine despicable went too far in opposing it and threw the cross out too. I think this book was inevitable, and if anything Calvinists ought to learn from it that they need to throw Calvin's Institutes away and get back to the Bible. Jesus went to hades, not gehenna, and this is what is referred to in Acts 2 and in the creed that mentions "he descended to hades" and the purpose of it was not to roast for our sins but to show that he has a soul, because souls go to hades when the body dies. When the Calvinists stop trusting in a roasted Christ for salvation and begin to trust in Christ crucified, maybe we will no longer have Marcus Borgs around denying the cross. But because the Calvinists go so far, he goes so far in the other direction.
Post a Comment